Re: [PATCH v1 5/7] s390/pgtable: support __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 15.03.22 17:21, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2022 15:18:35 +0100
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> Let's steal one bit from the offset. While at it, document the meaning
>> of bit 62 for swap ptes.
> 
> You define _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE as _PAGE_LARGE, which is bit 52, and
> this is not part of the swap pte offset IIUC. So stealing any bit might
> actually not be necessary, see below.

Indeed, thanks for catching that. I actually intended to use bit 51 ...

> 
> Also, bit 62 should be the soft dirty bit for normal PTEs, and this
> doesn't seem to be used for swap PTEs at all. But I might be missing
> some use case where softdirty also needs to be preserved in swap PTEs.
> 

It is, see below.

>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>>  1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index 008a6c856fa4..c182212a2b44 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -181,6 +181,8 @@ static inline int is_module_addr(void *addr)
>>  #define _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY 0x000
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +#define _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE _PAGE_LARGE	/* SW pte exclusive swap bit */
>> +
>>  /* Set of bits not changed in pte_modify */
>>  #define _PAGE_CHG_MASK		(PAGE_MASK | _PAGE_SPECIAL | _PAGE_DIRTY | \
>>  				 _PAGE_YOUNG | _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY)
>> @@ -796,6 +798,24 @@ static inline int pmd_protnone(pmd_t pmd)
>>  }
>>  #endif
>>  
>> +#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE
>> +static inline pte_t pte_swp_mkexclusive(pte_t pte)
>> +{
>> +	pte_val(pte) |= _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE;
>> +	return pte;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int pte_swp_exclusive(pte_t pte)
>> +{
>> +	return pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline pte_t pte_swp_clear_exclusive(pte_t pte)
>> +{
>> +	pte_val(pte) &= ~_PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE;
>> +	return pte;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline int pte_soft_dirty(pte_t pte)
>>  {
>>  	return pte_val(pte) & _PAGE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>> @@ -1675,16 +1695,19 @@ static inline int has_transparent_hugepage(void)
>>   * information in the lowcore.
>>   * Bits 54 and 63 are used to indicate the page type.
>>   * A swap pte is indicated by bit pattern (pte & 0x201) == 0x200
>> - * This leaves the bits 0-51 and bits 56-62 to store type and offset.
>> - * We use the 5 bits from 57-61 for the type and the 52 bits from 0-51
>> + * This leaves the bits 0-50 and bits 56-61 to store type and offset.
>> + * We use the 5 bits from 57-61 for the type and the 51 bits from 0-50
>>   * for the offset.
>> - * |			  offset			|01100|type |00|
>> - * |0000000000111111111122222222223333333333444444444455|55555|55566|66|
>> - * |0123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901|23456|78901|23|
>> + * |			  offset		       |E|01100|type |S0|
>> + * |000000000011111111112222222222333333333344444444445|5|55555|55566|66|
>> + * |012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890|1|23456|78901|23|
>> + *
>> + * S (bit 62) is used for softdirty tracking.
> 
> Unless there is some use for softdirty tracking in swap PTEs, I think
> this description does not belong here, to the swap PTE layout.

See pte_swp_soft_dirty and friends. E.g., do_swap_page() has to restore
it for the ordinary PTE from the swp pte.

if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(vmf->orig_pte))
	pte = pte_mksoft_dirty(pte);

> 
>> + * E (bit 51) is used to remember PG_anon_exclusive.
> 
> It is bit 52, at least with this patch, so I guess this could all be
> done w/o stealing anything. That is, of course, only if it is allowed
> to use bit 52 in this case. The POP says bit 52 has to be 0, or else
> a "translation-specification exception" is recognized. However, I think
> it could be OK for PTEs marked as invalid, like it is the case for swap
> PTEs.

My tests with this patch worked, BUT it was under z/VM on a fairly old z
machine. At least 2MiB huge pages are supported there. I did not run
into specification exception in that setup, but that doesn't mean that
that's the case under LPAR/KVM/newer systems.

> 
> The comment here says at the beginning:
> /*
>  * 64 bit swap entry format:
>  * A page-table entry has some bits we have to treat in a special way.
>  * Bits 52 and bit 55 have to be zero, otherwise a specification
>  * exception will occur instead of a page translation exception. The
>  * specification exception has the bad habit not to store necessary
>  * information in the lowcore.
> 
> This would mean that it is not OK to have bit 52 not zero for swap PTEs.
> But if I read the POP correctly, all bits except for the DAT-protection
> would be ignored for invalid PTEs, so maybe this comment needs some update
> (for both bits 52 and also 55).
> 
> Heiko might also have some more insight.

Indeed, I wonder why we should get a specification exception when the
PTE is invalid. I'll dig a bit into the PoP.

> 
> Anyway, stealing bit 51 might still be an option, but then
> _PAGE_SWP_EXCLUSIVE would need to be defined appropriately.
> 

Indeed.

Thanks for the very-fast review!

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb